Digitizing 120: Opinions regarding DSLR vs flatbed vs film scanner?

[peter_fowler]

In Vancouver , B.C the absolute cheapest drum scan of a medium format negative was $300 two years ago :) Peter

Kinda makes one think twice about the value .

[Gary Naka]

The trick with a dSLR is holding the film FLAT.

My father's old 35mm film was uncut and stored in a short cardboard tube or the 35mm can, so it CURLED, and was impossible for me to flatten. The enlargers negative carrier held it flat enough to print.

 

I saw a setup in use, and like a dummy, I did not get the make and model of it. It was a small light box with a vertical rail, to which the camera was attached to. I think the rail was adjustable, so the film could be cropped into. But I did not see anything to hold the film flat, which was OK as it was being used to digitize mounted 35mm slides. He was using a Nikon dSLR with a 55mm micro Nikkor lens.

[rodeo_joe1]

I saw a setup in use, and like a dummy, I did not get the make and model of it. It was a small light box with a vertical rail, to which the camera was attached to. I think the rail was adjustable, so the film could be cropped into. But I did not see anything to hold the film flat, which was OK as it was being used to digitize mounted 35mm slides. He was using a Nikon dSLR with a 55mm micro Nikkor lens.

 

- That would probably be a Bowens Illumitran. I rashly bought one without thoroughly checking it out - it was offered cheaply at the end of a camera fair where it hadn't sold. It turned out not to have the negative carrier stage, which needs a custom fitting, and the flash trigger voltage is too high to be totally safe with a modern digital camera. Apart from that it's wonderful! :rolleyes:

 

I will, eventually, get round to modifying it, but quite frankly you might be better off getting an old enlarger and modifying it into a copy stand and using its negative carrier to hold the film.

 

Another thought: In the distant past I copied slides by projecting the image from my enlarger directly into a camera body.The camera was supported pointing up at the enlarger lens with its own lens removed. It worked well after doing some acrobatics to get the focus right.

[orsetto]

In Vancouver , B.C the absolute cheapest drum scan of a medium format negative was $300 two years ago. Kinda makes one think twice about the value .

 

Agree, drum scans are extreme high end esoteric now. Not too many years ago they averaged closer to $100, which might be doable for a passion project, but at $300 apiece they're off the table for most personal work today. Still, the scanning services offering drum usually offer less expensive "high end" options like Creo/Scitex or at minimum Hasselblad FlexTight. The best bang-for-the-buck is likely the Hasselblad, tho a really good operator can squeeze amazing results from a Nikon CoolScan 8000 / 9000 (probably the least expensive, most available MF option from scanning services).

 

The trick with a dSLR is holding the film FLAT.

 

Yep. The flatness glitch with DSLR scanning is figuring out what to use as negative holder (and keeping the whole rig of camera, carrier and light source aligned squarely).. But similar "gotchas" plague most flatbed and dedicated film scanners as well. With flatbeds, you have the fiddly clumsy film holders, shims and focus issues. The popular MF film scanners from Nikon are notorious for inability to focus an entire 120 frame with their glassless trays, requiring optional glass trays that (alone) change hands for $300- $400 on eBay- then plague you with Newton rings half the time. Similar Polaroid, Minolta, PlusTek and Artix tray-based MF units suffer the same issues to some degree. The only scanners with fully-engineered flat negative carriers were the huge pro Creo, Fuji and Scitex flatbeds (which conveniently scan an entire roll in one pass). The Hasselblad has a weird flexible magnetic carrier (hence "FlexTight") that intentionally curves around the light source+lens. Drum scanners involve the most labor and skill, but have the "flattest" possible mounting: negatives are taped to a cylinder, which spins in relation to the scanner head, while bathed in a fluid to conceal dust and scratches.

 

- That would probably be a Bowens Illumitran. I rashly bought one without thoroughly checking it out - it was offered cheaply at the end of a camera fair where it hadn't sold. It turned out not to have the negative carrier stage, which needs a custom fitting, and the flash trigger voltage is too high to be totally safe with a modern digital camera. Apart from that it's wonderful! :rolleyes:

 

Around the time of the first Canon 5D, when the "DSLR scanning" idea first gained traction, almost every practitioner said they hacked an Illumitran to do it (for awhile there, used illumitrans spawned insane eBay bidding wars). I don't recall any of those threads mentioning the flash trigger issue, so I'm REAL glad you just did (or I might have learned the hard way when I eventually try one). Kind of an important point to overlook, "BTW you might incinerate your camera motherboard". But those threads usually got swamped by other details, so I guess it got sidelined. I haven't checked in a long time, perhaps newer Illumitrans discussions include tips to modify the trigger voltage. I look forward to reading about your own modifications, if you ever get around to the project.

Edited November 30, 2018 by orsetto

[AJG]

Agree, drum scans are extreme high end esoteric now. Not too many years ago they averaged closer to $100, which might be doable for a passion project, but at $300 apiece they're off the table for most personal work today. Still, the scanning services offering drum usually offer less expensive "high end" options like Creo/Scitex or at minimum Hasselblad FlexTight. The best bang-for-the-buck is likely the Hasselblad, tho a really good operator can squeeze amazing results from a Nikon CoolScan 8000 / 9000 (probably the least expensive, most available MF option from scanning services).

 

 

 

Yep. The flatness glitch with DSLR scanning is figuring out what to use as negative holder (and keeping the whole rig of camera, carrier and light source aligned squarely).. But similar "gotchas" plague most flatbed and dedicated film scanners as well. With flatbeds, you have the fiddly clumsy film holders, shims and focus issues. The popular MF film scanners from Nikon are notorious for inability to focus an entire 120 frame with their glassless trays, requiring optional glass trays that (alone) change hands for $300- $400 on eBay- then plague you with Newton rings half the time. Similar Polaroid, Minolta, PlusTek and Artix tray-based MF units suffer the same issues to some degree. The only scanners with fully-engineered flat negative carriers were the huge pro Creo, Fuji and Scitex flatbeds (which conveniently scan an entire roll in one pass). The Hasselblad has a weird flexible magnetic carrier (hence "FlexTight") that intentionally curves around the light source+lens. Drum scanners involve the most labor and skill, but have the "flattest" possible mounting: negatives are taped to a cylinder, which spins in relation to the scanner head, while bathed in a fluid to conceal dust and scratches.

 

 

 

Around the time of the first Canon 5D, when the "DSLR scanning" idea first gained traction, almost every practitioner said they hacked an Illumitran to do it (for awhile there, used illumitrans spawned insane eBay bidding wars). I don't recall any of those threads mentioning the flash trigger issue, so I'm REAL glad you just did (or I might have learned the hard way when I eventually try one). Kind of an important point to overlook, "BTW you might incinerate your camera motherboard". But those threads usually got swamped by other details, so I guess it got sidelined. I haven't checked in a long time, perhaps newer Illumitrans discussions include tips to modify the trigger voltage. I look forward to reading about your own modifications, if you ever get around to the project.

I've never used an Illumitran, but it is of the vintage that would have used a PC cord for sync. A simple radio transmitter/receiver should finesse the voltage issue.

[photog1514]

I've started shooting more and more film lately, mainly 120 medium format on a variety of my older film cameras: Mamiya RZ-67, Mamiya M645, Fuji GA645, and a Shen Hao 6x17. I scan my negatives on an Epson V800 with SilverFast 8 software. I'm more than satisfied with the results. This is a test image with the 6x17, shot on Ilford Delta 100, then imported into Lightroom and Photoshop for final edits.

 

[rodeo_joe1]

A simple radio transmitter/receiver should finesse the voltage issue.

 

- The thing's cumbersome enough as it is.

 

I designed a little trigger-voltage-dropper circuit some time ago for the likes of old Metz 45CTs and such. I just need to find the time to plant one in the Illumitran and make it permanently 'safe'. Also the fitted BPM bellows is a shoddy thing. I'll likely upgrade it with a spare Novoflex set. As for the dim car-interior-lamp focussing light - a daylight balanced LED replacement is in the pipeline.

[sergio_ortega7]

Aztek sells a wet mounting kit for Epson flatbed scanners:

 

Epson V700, V750, V800 & V850 Kami Kit Starter supply kit for Wetmounting

 

Better Scan sells MF adjustable height holders with ANR glass for Epson (and other) flatbeds:

 

Custom film holders for Agfa, Microtek, Canon and Epson film scanners.

[ben_hutcherson]

FWIW, the local camera store has an automated slide scanning set-up where they have a lens-less Carousel with a D5000 and a 60mm Micro mounted on a rail in front of it. I'd think something similar could be engineered with an enlarger.

 

I have the Betterscanning holder for my V700-it's better than the Epson holder, but has its own problems. I have better results with the AN glass than using the T-locks.

 

Epson makes a glass tray that you need to use the Aztec wet mounting kit. I sort of engineered my own wet mount kit which doesn't work as well as using Aztek supplies, but cost me a lot less. First of all, I was able to get some long-dead thin layer chromotography plates out of the trash at work. They are on optical quality, reasonably flat glass, so I just washed the silica gel off them, cut them to a workable size for the Epson tray, and cleaned them up well(I used two, and still have two more boxes to maybe one day use for wet plates). I've used spectroscopic grade heptane on then. I've been able to get the best scans I've ever seen from my V700 with this set-up, but it's also harder to "work" bubbles out from under the glass than I imagine it would be with the mylar in the Aztek kit.

 

I need to get my Cooolscan 8000 off lay-a-way at the local camera shop-I'm looking forward to learning how to use it. Someone commented on film flatness with it-when I tested it in the shop I did like that you could adjust the holders to put a bit of tension on the film. I know that's probably not a perfect solution, but it's better than the Epson holders.

[Ed_Ingold]

The standard, glassless holder for 120 film clamps the edges and can slide to tension the film and remove most of the cupping. It's not good enough to keep the edges and center in focus, however. The glass holder is the one to get for critical sharpness. Some have added glass to the standard holder with good results. AN glass should go on top, otherwise the etched pattern will affect the results.

[Gary Naka]

- That would probably be a Bowens Illumitran. I rashly bought one without thoroughly checking it out - it was offered cheaply at the end of a camera fair where it hadn't sold. It turned out not to have the negative carrier stage, which needs a custom fitting, and the flash trigger voltage is too high to be totally safe with a modern digital camera. Apart from that it's wonderful! :rolleyes:

 

Nope, not the Illumitran.

 

The thing I saw had a shallow light box at the bottom, no more than 2 inches high.

And the light box, appeared to be large enough for a 4x5 slide.

 

Maybe I'll look for a small light box and an old enlarger.

[orsetto]

The standard, glassless holder for 120 film clamps the edges and can slide to tension the film and remove most of the cupping. It's not good enough to keep the edges and center in focus, however. The glass holder is the one to get for critical sharpness. Some have added glass to the standard holder with good results. AN glass should go on top, otherwise the etched pattern will affect the results.

 

This ^^^^.

 

The glassless holder "tensioning" gimmick was a great idea on paper, but it doesn't really deliver for most users. Over the years, I'd say approx 25% of CoolScan owners report the glassless tray working perfectly for them, while 75% hate it. When it works, its wonderful: totally bypasses all the problems of glass carriers (expense, dust, fragile border shims, and Newtons Rings). But as implemented by Nikon, the glassless tray has two big "gotchas" that render it useless for most films. One, the tensioning mechanism relies on special rollers that age quickly and lose their grip. Two, the CoolScan lens has less depth-of-focus than a Canon Dream 50mm f/0.95: it can barely nail films in the glass tray, forget the glassless tray unless you're one of the lucky few.

 

Unfortunately the glassless tray was always a ridiculously overpriced optional accessory. Demand far outstrips supply on the second hand market, so the tray by itself costs a minimum $250 extra if you didn't get it in a package deal with your CoolScan. Two glassless trays were available: standard and rotating. The standard is expensive, the rotating is utterly insane expensive. The standard allows 3 frames of 6x6 to scan in succession, the rotating only one frame at a time. The rotating is slower and more fiddly to load but is helpful with oddball sizes like Hasselblad X-Pan. Both glass trays require black framing shims to crop the film edges: the CoolScans don't "do" the pretentious show-the-rebate style. These black shims are easily lost / damaged and often missing from second hand units: ask before buying. Replacements are sporadically available. or you can make your own from black mylar film or construction paper. Quite a few CoolScan owners have modified their glassless tray with DIY glass, as Ed_Ingold suggested. Focal Point once sold a popular ready-cut glass kit for just this purpose, not sure if they still due.

 

The Nikon CS 8000 & 9000 are fragile, both mechanically and electronically. I've been lucky with mine: after Nikon repaired its initial failure, it has been reliable for nearly a decade of occasional use. Many others have not been so lucky. These units are notorious for developing three maladies: tray stepper failure, dirty scanning mirror, and (most frequently) FireWire connection failure. Mine had the stepper failure, and its a complete PITA to repair, even for Nikon (who no longer does it). Awhile back, I believe some genius on this forum posted a step-by-step guide to DIY repair of this mechanism. For the desperate and adventurous, it is doable if daunting. Ditto the FireWire repair: with some skill and patience, DIY replacement of a failed FireWire circuit is possible. Cleaning a dirty mirror involves a fairly deep disassembly, an illustrated tutorial for this was provided in a blog post many years ago which is still online. The mirror is front-coated and extremely fragile: take the cleaning warnings seriously.

 

Many of the common CoolScan breakdowns can be delayed or avoided by treating them like Faberge eggs: keep scanners fully dust-covered when not in use, install them where they won't ever get bumped or have their cords stressed, and always have your computer and software fully booted before powering on your CoolScan. I would go so far as to recommend having a dedicated workstation just for scanning, preferably an old Mac 10.4 or Windows XP box that can still natively run the final iteration of NikonScan software.The CS8000 had a banding issue in normal "fast" scanning mode that can only be avoided by switching to "fine" mode: this leads to tediously long scanning times. Nikon being Nikon, instead of fixing the CS8000 they denied there was a problem and simply replaced it with the CS9000 (which quietly did fix the problem, hence its much-higher second-hand pricing). Aside from faster scanning and marginally better D-Max, the 9000 is the same as the 8000. And even the 9000 can be afflicted by banding with challenging transparencies: sometimes it too must switch to far slower "fine" mode.

 

There are multiple posts on this forum re how to "hack" NikonScan to run on Windows 7, 8 and possibly 10 but I think its easier and better just to dedicate an old cheap legacy box to it. Mac users have no choice but to use a legacy computer: NikonScan cannot be hacked for Mac OS later than 10.5 Leopard. Newer Mac OS (and Windows) require third-party alternatives like VueScan or SilverFast. Scanning software is a very personal choice, but with these units most owners feel NikonScan yields the best color, SilverFast the most flexibility, and VueScan the best price/performance and support. They are all a nightmare to use: you are in for a grim learning curve with any film scanner, and any scanning software, regardless of brand. But when the planets align and you've developed a workflow, the CoolScans can produce stunning results. In various threads, Ed_Ingold has posted a number of his scans from Hasselblad shots that highlight the CoolScan's abilities (as well as his own).

Edited December 2, 2018 by orsetto

[orsetto]

Ugh, typos. My second paragraph in previous post should read "the glass tray is an expensive optional accessory", and "two glass trays were available, standard and rotating".

[ben_hutcherson]

There are multiple posts on this forum re how to "hack" NikonScan to run on Windows 7, 8 and possibly 10 but I think its easier and better just to dedicate an old cheap legacy box to it. Mac users have no choice but to use a legacy computer: NikonScan cannot be hacked for Mac OS later than 10.5 Leopard.

 

Small correction on this-the NikonScan 4 will work in OS X 10.6.8(Snow Leopard). In fact, when I was testing my 8000 out in the shop before buying, I toted a white MacBook(built-in Firewire 400) running 10.6.8 for testing.

 

I make this distinction since it opens you up to the possibility of using much newer computers. All of the 2011 MacBook Pros will run 10.6.8 natively(although the late 2011s didn't ship with it and won't boot with anything earlier than 10.6.7 or so-this is significant since the retail disks are all 10.6.3). You can also run it on a 2012 Mac Pro, which is where I do all of my scanning.

 

The only caveat I will mention is that it is not possible to do Firewire pass-through to a virtual machine. I've actually been able to run my Coolscan V(USB) on newer computers using a Snow Leopard Server virtual machine(for those interested-under Apple's EULA it is only legal to virtualize SL Server, not SL client, and you can only legally virtualize it on Apple hardware), but the 8000 and 9000 are out due to this limitation.

[orsetto]

I was on the fence about recommending Snow Leopard, because it can be a more problematic OS for dedicated legacy purposes. If you already own a spare older Mac that *requires* Snow Leopard instead of Leopard, it certainly makes sense to use it as a dedicated CoolScan workstation. But starting from scratch, it's usually less hassle to pick up a 10.5-capable Mac. Most of the improvements to 10.6 have little bearing on scanner operation, while its potential for inscrutable NikonScan headaches can be exponentially worse depending on the exact Mac+software configuration (10.6-required Mac models vs 10.5 models updated to 10.6 vary wildly in stability: sometimes the former are better, sometimes the latter).

 

Long-term Mac geeks who endured the horrific transition era from 10.5 to 10.6 to 10.7 will understand what I'm getting at. That rocky evolution was arguably necessary for the platform in a general-purpose sense, but was torture for those who'd finally locked down a nice, smooth-running 10.5 system dedicated to graphics, scanning and FireWire imaging. Since there's no compelling reason to have a dedicated personal film scanning workstation connected to the internet today, the 'insecure' obsolete 10.5 and Win XP are often preferable for running legacy accessories whose driver development died with those OSes. Of course, if you can only use a single computer for both scanning and general purposes, you'll want to hack NikonScan for more current Windows versions (or run a dual-boot Mac).

[rodeo_joe1]

Nope, not the Illumitran.

 

The thing I saw had a shallow light box at the bottom, no more than 2 inches high.

And the light box, appeared to be large enough for a 4x5 slide.

 

- Flash is definitely the best light source for slide/negative copying IMO. All it takes is a speedlight pointed at a bit of 45 degree white card to diffuse and direct the light upwards. You're not going to fit a flash source in a 2" high box, and continuous source lightboxes need exposures long enough to risk vibration degrading definition.

 

The Illumitran is basically a good design poorly executed. It could really do with being updated for the digital age; such that multiple formats could be easily copied.

 

All current attachments seem to only accommodate 35mm film.

[lukpac]

continuous source lightboxes need exposures long enough that any vibration will degrade definition.

 

Even with a remote release and tripod?

[carbon_dragon]

For what it's worth, I'm running El Capitan (10.11) with Vuescan and a Nikon Coolscan V and doing OK. Can't run the Nikon software of course, which is a shame because it used to be pretty good.

[rodeo_joe1]

Even with a remote release and tripod?

 

- Possibly. There's no coupling between a tripod and lightbox, which means that any room vibration (from a suspended floor or passing traffic, etc.) can cause the camera to move relative to the slide/negative being copied. An almost imperceptible 0.05 mm displacement at the film will give an easily visible 0.5mm blur in a 10x print. So it doesn't take much to take the edge off your digital copies.

 

The best setup is where camera, light-box and negative stage are all fixed to one column..... and then you use a short-duration flash.

[c_watson1]

I park a light box on my old Manfrotto-made copystand with a dslr attached. No issues.

[ben_hutcherson]

For what it's worth, I'm running El Capitan (10.11) with Vuescan and a Nikon Coolscan V and doing OK. Can't run the Nikon software of course, which is a shame because it used to be pretty good.

 

If you want to run Nikon Scan, there is a way to do it with the Coolscan V(not the 8000 or 9000).

 

You will need a copy of Snow Leopard Server, which is $20 from Apple and delivered as a physical disk

 

Apple - Mac OS X Server Snow Leopard

 

Then, the easiest program to use(IMHO) to set up a virtual machine is VMWare Fusion, although VirtualBox is free. Install SL Server in the virtual machine and install Nikon Scan 4 in it. You then will be able to "pass through" your scanner connected via USB and control it using Nikon Scan from inside the Snow Leopard virtual machine.

[carbon_dragon]

Vuescan is good enough for me.

[orsetto]

For what it's worth, I'm running El Capitan (10.11) with Vuescan and a Nikon Coolscan V and doing OK. Can't run the Nikon software of course, which is a shame because it used to be pretty good.

 

I use VueScan to run a Polaroid SprintScan 4000+ for much of my 35mm scanning. The 35mm-specific Polaroid gives me somewhat more (subjectively) pleasing results than scanning 35mm in the medium-format CoolScan 8000. IDK, perhaps its the more diffuse light source in the Polaroid vs the 'condenser' LED lamp in the Nikon. Anyway VueScan runs the Polaroid very well: I've never used the clunky software it originally came with (aside from the very clever standalone Polaroid dust & scratch removal utility, which to my amazement runs neck-and-neck with the CoolScan's ICE system). The Polaroid is half the size of the CS8000, has both FireWire and USB connections (handy with USB-only Windows setups), and is much quicker for 35mm scanning if dust/scratch removal is included.

 

For MF film, the CS8000 seems to eke out slightly better more-repeatable results with NikonScan (tho it works just fine with VueScan too). Most people who are just now looking into scanning their MF film with a Nikon CS should probably start with VueScan, since it can be deployed on almost any OS platform from the last 20 years and presumably into the future for as long as Ed Hamrick remains interested in developing it. VueScan is much less expensive than SilverFast (the only other alternative capable of running a CoolScan 8000/9000 from a 2019 OS). NikonScan offers a few proprietary features not available in VueScan (particularly with the CS9000 model) and arguably wrings that last little bit of extra performance from the Nikon units. But it needs a Mac OS no later than 10.6.8, Win XP, or hacking the Windows driver for 7/8/10 compatibility.

Edited December 4, 2018 by orsetto

[ben_hutcherson]

The advantage to using Nikon Scan vs. Vue Scan at least for color film is that you get "real" Digital ICE.

 

D-ICE refers to two things-both the infrared scanning channel and the software algorithms that make use of it.

 

The III, IV, V, 8000, and 9000 all are capable of IR channel scanning. Since I don't yet actually HAVE my 8000 in hand, I don't know if it works this way, but the III, IV, and V have the nice advantage of collecting the IR channel at the same time as the visible channels(the flatbeds I've used make a separate pass for this).

 

Vuescan can make use of the IR channel scan, but uses their own proprietary algorithms for dust and scratch removal.

 

For a while, I was convinced that Vuescan was "just as good" as ICE, but did some side by side tests in my V on the same negative. I'm away from the computer where I have the comparison scans, but I'm happy to post them when I can if anyone is interested in seeing them. I was scanning Kodak 400UC(I miss that film-I have a few 120 rolls in the freezer still) and had a couple of decent scratches on it courtesy of my local Wal-Mart's 1 hour lab. ICE completely "removed" a scratch in a fairly detailed area without much loss in detail, while Vuescan even set to "high" smudged over the detail without completely removing the scratch. Both did about equally well in fixing problems in low-detail areas like the sky, but then those areas barely require any work in Photoshop. BTW, you also get real ICE on Epson scanners when you use the Epson software, although none of it works when you're scanning directly on the bed and AN glass interferes with it.

 

I like Vuescan enough that I've bought it twice over the years-the second time I was smart enough to buy the "pro" license, which gives you perpetual upgrades. I used Vuescan long before I got my first Nikon scanner, so initially resisted using Nikon Scan because it was familiar. I find that, as a general rule, Nikon software tends to be clunky anyway, and they can't write Mac software to save their lives. Still, though, even though it took some work to learn how to use Nikon Scan, I'm glad I spent the time learning it.

 

(BTW, the Epson software is perhaps easier to use than Nikon Scan, but I found it fairly unstable in 10.5 and 10.6).

[Ed_Ingold]

Silverfast works with an LS-8000 in High Sierra. It's a little quirky until you get used to the interface (which is essentially the same for any scanner), and doesn't have some of the features available in Nikonscan (long obsolete). However the color is better than in Nikonscan, and you can insert your own scan profile. Batch scanning isn't as easy in Silverfast, but actually more flexible once you get the hang of it.